Probably due to my setup with NoScript and RequestPolicy, the page kept reloading. Disabling Javascript for bbc.co.uk enabled it to load without problem.
It's still a nostalgic symbol of the days when "the sun never sets on the British Empire". Nobody is nostalgic for the days when England was a tiny backwater whose only claim to fame was bothering the French.
It's a nostalgic symbol of the myth of 2,000 years of history. (Although I think in practical terms the earliest anyone even remotely sensible would date the history is the Anglo-Saxon colonisation, ~1500 years ago.)
The idea that there is a continuous history even of the English over this time is utterly risible - let alone the British, 'Britain' as a thing being - as the GGGGP says - the product of the imperial era more than anything else (act of union 1707, last Jacobite rising 1745; treaty of Utrecht, which cemented British supremacy, 1714; rapid colonial expansion thereafter).
The more pressing problem with the monarchy is the 'royal prerogative', which has the effect of turning 'Call Me Dave' Cameron into a de facto president.
As a believer in the exclusive democratic legitimacy of the legislature, I do not believe in monarchs - born or elected.
The history of Britain dates back to the Caesar's half-arsed invasion, surely. The history of the various British peoples seems pretty continuous from Anglo Saxon times onwards. I don't understand why citing particular 18th century treaties is meant to contradict that.
Are you suggesting that you would prefer Cameron as a de jure President?
I know there is a debate about when the idea of "Britishness" as a cultural thing started, but for 2,000 years we have had a monarch, and I would suspect if you chucked King Alfred into the state opening of parliament he wouldn't find all the rituals completely alien.
The monarchy pre-dates England having any sort of prestige at all. Indeed, it pre-dates England as being a single kingdom or a collectively ruled entity of any sort.
I actually like the idea of a hypothetical post-revolutionary Britain which seeks to emphasize the humble status of politicians by requiring that all their political arguments are voiced by a randomly-selected homeless person.
Kind of a mixture of the ceremonial humbling of the Queen mentioned in the original article and the Troubles-era rule that all Sinn Fein statements must be read by an actor.
If you are asking if there are monarchs with real power, then yes there are several. In the middle east you have countries like Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE. There are even several in Europe; Vatican City, Monaco, Liechtenstein.
You could even argue that the reserve powers of the British monarch are indeed great, although, if they ever tried to exercise them in there own right there would probably be a constitutional crisis, and without broad public support they would not prevail.
> You could even argue that the reserve powers of the British monarch are indeed great, although, if they ever tried to exercise them in there own right there would probably be a constitutional crisis, and without broad public support they would not prevail.
And by extension... with broad public support they would prevail and execute the will of the people in a time of crisis and with the full support of the military. Which, perversely, effectively places the reserve powers of the Monarch and the might of the military in the hands of the people at exactly the time the people would need them.
> Is there any sovereign who can still rule like king Geoffrey?
You mean King Joffrey from Game of Thrones? Who reigned briefly, and during that time could essentially only effectively rule what occurred in his immediate presence and then only mostly by surprise, since otherwise effective rule in his name was mostly by his mother, uncle, or (simultaneously paternal and maternal) grandfather according to their own desires?
Yeah, there are real monarchs with at least that much power a number of places.
It's no different to when Bliar or Brown were in power. Brown never actually won an election, he took over from Bliar after he stepped down. How's that for democracy?
That’s how democracy in Britain works. You vote for a party, not a person. The party is free to make changes to the internal structure as they see fit.
Well, not to undermine the gist of your point (which I agree with) but instead of voting for a party per se, you actually vote for a local Member of Parliament, who can be a member of a party or not, and is free to switch party whenever they like as they sees fit.
Stupid waste of time and money. We should abolish the damn monarchy once and for all, let them get a job like the government tells everybody else they must do.
Unfortunately I choose to migrate from one constitutional monarchy to another, which seems to have just as much fun with all the ceremonies, days off and drunken patriotism as back home. Peer Netherlands
She has a job, mostly it comprises representing British interests at home and abroad in a very visible way. This article reflects another aspect of it.
We've fired a monarch before, it was quite the event. However the republican we replaced him with wasn't very popular, banned Christmas and his son ended up inheriting his job.
Just like the Athenians found with democracy - where they chose at random their executive each year. The people who run for powerful offices are usually the exact sort who you don't want in charge. Luck is a very good equaliser.
Another point: India replaced the British monarch with a constitutional figurehead, the President, when it became a republic in 1950. The Indian president is elected by parliament (deliberately, so he doesn't have direct popular support). It's usually a sinecure for elderly politicians. However, India still spends quite a bit on the upkeep of the presidential palace, etc. So turning into a republic hasn't been cost-free.
So for constitutional monarchies, the question would be: if they were ever to turn into a republic, who would be their head of state? and how would that be any better than simply staying with the monarch?
Exactly. Whatever flaws can be said to exist within the Westminster system (be it in Britain, Canada, Australia, etc), without the moral cause of not being ruled by a monarch, none of them are derived from the continued existence of the monarchy. It is so benign that its existence doesn't matter. Change for change's sake is a dangerous game.
> It is so benign that its existence doesn't matter.
No "common" person born in Britain, Canada, Australia etc. today can ever become the head of state of those countries, no matter how smart, qualified, or hard-working they are. That seem benign to you?
Benign in the sense that it has zero effect on the political situation of the country. The monarch plays no political role. Yes, it is a position destined for people born into it, but I see it as a symbol of both our history and the stability of our system. It's also a symbol of our shared heritage across the Commonwealth. I consider my country (Canada) to be a proud standard-bearer of our British heritage through upholding the Westminster tradition that we inherited. In some ways I feel like we are more British than the British are, when it comes to the realization of ideals. The Crown is what binds us to both our past and to our brothers and sisters around the world.
Sure, its fundamentally also a symbol of inequality and it is the ultimate anachronism today, but the role it plays in daily life is so low that I don't think it even matters. Do I feel strange being reigned over by an elderly German lady from across the ocean? Perhaps. But the alternative is radical and unpredictable change, and that I am not so excited about. I like the idea that ultimate power in the country is invested in someone who is fundamentally disinterested in politics. The Crown has no political side, only what is best for the country. I understand why people are so uncomfortable with the notion of the monarchy, but I believe it is in the best interest of our country to maintain it.
> I consider my country (Canada) to be a proud standard-bearer of our British heritage through upholding the Westminster tradition that we inherited. In some ways I feel like we are more British than the British are, when it comes to the realization of ideals. The Crown is what binds us to both our past and to our brothers and sisters around the world.
I would guess that your compatriots from Quebec or the First Nations might feel differently.
Let's say we decide to abolish the monarchy purely on humanitarian grounds (i.e. it's tantamount to slavery, however gilded the shackles might be, so let's rescue them). Do they get a say? What if they decline to be saved? What does that say about their motivations - maybe they like the rewards of their servitude a little too much? What if secretly they crave power? Does the very act of refusing to be freed imply that they must be freed? What about the converse - if they accept release, then perhaps we'd consider them to be truly moral and therefore ideally suited to the role; mightn't we then decide not to abolish the job after all?
My personal view is that the monarchy is a net benefit to the country, both economically and politically. I believe that republicanism* in Britain is mostly the product of reflexive prejudice and not deep, open minded consideration. I'd be interested to hear what the proposed benefits of abolishing the monarchy are, beyond a trivial cash saving which one might argue is invalid in the first place.
*(meaning abolition of the monarchy, not the Irish variety)
> I'd be interested to hear what the proposed benefits of abolishing the monarchy are, beyond a trivial cash saving which one might argue is invalid in the first place.
It's quite simple really: in a republic a president is the head of state (as opposed to a monarch), and is elected (as opposed to a monarch) to serve for a defined period of time (as opposed to a monarch). A president is chosen based on merit, not on birth right. It's really about fairness and accountability.
And yet there is a growing chorus of voices in the USA complaining - with some justification - that the country is run by an elite for the exclusive benefit of that elite. The fairness aspects you talk about are, at this stage in the evolution of Western democracy, largely nominal.
The British monarch acts as a very gentle but constant steadying hand on the tiller of government. The queen meets in private with the prime minister weekly and holds regular meetings with a group of senior politicians (the Privy Council) as well as performing the functions described in the OP. These things help to inculcate British political life with a sense of permanence and continuity, and of duty and service to the country - the latter two being especially well exemplified by the monarchy. The day to day scrapping at PMQs doesn't reflect this on the surface, but read any retired PM's memoirs for some color on how important that aspect of her role really is. This would utterly disappear with an elected head of state, leaving British politics to collapse (some would add 'further') into the kind of rampant short-termism which afflicts most Western republics.
True, she's not elected. True, perhaps, that her position isn't 'fair' in some arbitrarily egalitarian sense, but that cuts both ways: she can't escape her position. The steady state which Britain has reached over the last thousand years of experimentation is proving remarkably resilient, given that supposed lack of fairness and accountability at the very top.
Perhaps it's just that theoretical concerns of absolute fairness and accountability don't really matter when you have a system which works well and allows its people full participatory rights in its government.
It's also worth saying that the "soft power" of a Royal Visit, not even the Queen, is immense. A visit from the US President is probably on par with a visit from the Queen in terms of soft power projection, no other head of state in the world would garner anything close.
A visit from the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge probably eclipses either.
The goodwill benefit to the UK is immense. Taking the politics out of it is also very useful, see the recent state visit to Ireland, any elected British head of state would not have been able to produce such a meaningful and symbolic event.
I agree, but I imagine they'd have a hell of a time unweaving the multitude of agreements and concessions between the monarch and the government over the centuries. Give them back a bunch of assets and property to manage under private ownership and be equally taxed on and we'd have a fair start.
The "bunch of assets" that the crown effectively surrendered in return for financial dependence on parliament is the Crown Estate, currently worth GBP 8.1 billion (USD 13.6 billion).
They also pay tax: "In 1992, The Queen volunteered to pay income tax and capital gains tax, and since 1993 her personal income has been taxable as for any other taxpayer. The Queen has always been subject to Value Added Tax and pays local rates on a voluntary basis." I also assume that she does minimal tax avoidance.
If the UK had President Cameron (god help us all) then we'd still have a similarly long speech, with a similar number of people in a similar place every year - much like the State of the Nation address in the USA. It's a function of Government to state what they plan in the upcoming year so debate about it can begin.
We'd also have to protect President Dave as much as the Queen now; I saw an article a few years back stating that President Hollande directly costs the French as much than the Queen does in security, expenses and so on.
The pomp and ceremony displayed in the Queen's Speech are just traditional flourishes to what would always be an expensive meeting in an expensive government year.
Key difference I suppose is that President Hollande was elected. The French did not like Sarkozy anymore so they kicked him out at the last election. Bit more accountable that way, and it's not possible that you would be stuck with the same president for decades unlike monarchs.
We probably wouldn't have a President Cameron , most republics separate the head of state from the head of parliament. The US system works differently altogether in this regard. We would probably have someone like Jeremy Clarkson as president.
In a way -- and I say this as an American -- I perceive that one possible advantage of the British monarchy (with its particular form and historical context) is that by concentrating the ceremonial roles of chief of state in a different person than the head of government -- and divorcing the former from the political process in a way which you don't have in systems that have the separation but choose both through conventional political means -- you divorce, to a degree, tribal patriotism and support for the nation from support from the current political leadership, and simultaneously remove the distancing (from the rest of society) effect that the ceremonial functions of chief of state has from the functional head of government.
Its not something I would want to replicate in form here (and it wouldn't work anyway -- to the extent it works in the UK it does because of historical context, not because of the form alone), and I'm not saying that Britons shouldn't adopt a Republic, but I think that its worth considering what benefits the monarchy provides (even if they are outweighed by the costs) and whether any replacement system can retain or replicate them by alternate means while mitigating the costs (and maybe it can't, and the best net is to sacrifice the benefits to eliminate the costs.)
That's a great point. You don't get the "I support our president because I'm a patriot" crap.
The other advantage is in breaking up gridlock. I kind of wanted a Queen during the government shutdown last year, so she could dissolve Congress and allow us to vote the lot of them out. I bet you they'd be a lot less likely to do things like that if they knew there could be a sudden election, right when public support is at its lowest.
I think there is a cultural disconnect on both sides here. As a yank I
think it is absolutely preposterous that Australian, British, Canadian,
Dominican, etc citizens and members of the military must swear or affirm
an oath of allegiance to some lady, "her heirs and successors according to
law" simply because of who her daddy was. But that is because I am not
intimately acquainted with all of the symbolism and tradition.
Similarly, I think that subjects of the commonwealth miss out on an understanding of the symbolism and tradition
behind the "support the president" quote.[^1] The support in this case is not about the individual but about the
office of PotUS. The support of the office is an acceptance and affirmation of the outcome of a free an fair
election and in no small part a complete and total rejection of the chains of haplotype worship. In the US oath of
allegiance citizens swear or affirm allegiance to the Constitution and instead of swearing or affirming allegiance,
individuals must renounce and abjure any allegiance to princes, sovereigns, etc.
[^1]: I say "I think I understand the sentiment" but I have never heard of
it phrased that way (and Google only gives three results yours being one of
them.
I agree that it's weird to swear allegiance to some person who inherited their spot. I didn't say I wanted a queen!
I do, however, see the wisdom in a non-political head of state. It can help break gridlock and disassociate patriotism from politics. (w.r.t the "I support our president" thing, I was specifically thinking of this crap: [1].)
I just don't think anyone's found the right option for the head of state. Inheritance is bad, a sinecure for elderly politician is bad, a popular election would obviate the non-political part of it. I almost want it to be a career civil servant, like a career diplomat. The Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs is, I believe, the highest non-appointed person in State. Something like that.
yep, the Queen is quite frugal in that matter. The cost of representation and the the perceived splendor aren't really correlated.
I've heard a few years ago that Hollande, to break with his predecessor Sarkozy, wanted to travel by train rather than by plane whenever possible, in order to look less costly for the French citizen. However it wasn't the case : a train is way more complex to secure than a plane.
Basically in order to secure a train, you need to put an agent at every junction/bridge/tunnel to look for saboteur or terrorist, whereas a plane can take off (resp. land) from (resp. on) a military airport (national airspace is being monitored anyway).
I am with you in concept, and the idea of royalty seems crazy when the current generation has more in common with the Kardashians and Hiltons than anything seemingly royal.
That said, I think it's ok to honor a deal of, "Walk away, and we let your offspring pretend they are important, and we won't expropriate your wealth." And as much of a shmuck Prince Harry seems to be, I respect that he volunteered to serve in Afghanistan, where he knew he would be a target. That's more brave than any president that the US has seen in the past 20 years.
The replacement, given that people still believe in the idea of democracy, would be either elected by the people, or appointed by the political classes. Either way, they would be political insiders, and so would be identical to the Blairs and Camerons of this world.
I would like to see the Monarchy take a more active role in the government of the country, but even without that they remain a theoretical counter to the foolishness of our current leadership.
I actually feel sad for the lot of them. It's not like they went looking for fame, it was thrust upon them. I, for one, would hate the continuous travel, smile, nod, shake hand, smile, move on.
Prince George's future is all laid out, he has zero incentive and zero opportunity to make something worthwhile by himself. He will never be "just another one of the team", at least, not for long.
Oh, I'm not saying he won't contribute, just that his choices are extremely limited, to a degree I would not want for my son.
Being a part of military actually should be seen as a limitation rather than William going his own way. Since the soldiers pledge their loyalty to the crown it is deemed appropriate that a potential future monarch should serve in the military. They get to choose which bit, and perhaps when, but they probably never had a choice about joining up. Then the Royals only tend to spend a couple of years. Harry is the keenest as he joined infantry. But his fame brought him back from action early because he was a prized target.
Also Wikipedia now says Harry's now in project management: "On 17 January 2014, the Ministry of Defence announced that Harry had completed his attachment to 3 Regiment Army Air Corps and will take up a staff officer role at the position of SO3 (Defence Engagement) in HQ London District. His responsibilities will include helping to co-ordinate significant projects and commemorative events involving the Army in London."
I would expect this is not what he would have chosen had he been born Harry Smith.
If he really didn't like it he could give it up - we've had abdications before. It seems like a pretty sweet gig to me - a chance to see the world, talk to lots of different people, and the work's not exactly strenuous.
J. Michael Straczynski wrote an episode of B5 which demonstrated the feeling of someone who was in this position, the feeling of helplessness as you really don't get to make a choice, they were all made for you, "The Coming of Shadows"
The quote that stands out from the episode, "It has occurred to me recently that I have never chosen anything. I was born into a role that was prepared for me. I did everything I was asked to do because it never occurred to me to choose otherwise. And now, at the end of my life, I wonder what might have been. "
He can stop, but that doesn't mean that he necessarily controls the succession process afterwards. That is, if you meant by "stop", that he could quit as monarch.
On the positive side, Prince George is going to have access to incredible wealth and a platform that he can use to influence people. If he wanted to stay in the public sphere he could have a very significant impact.
It's a great article and the insight into the symbolism of the event is fascinating.
I always wondered what the guy banging on the door of the houses of Parliament with the huge ceremonial stick was all about when I was a kid.
Nevertheless, so long as power is concentrated in an utterly unaccountable and inaccessible elite we'll never know if it is indicative of the true state of affairs, an elaborate coverup or somewhere in-between the two.
Where I come from to question the British Monarchy is not only unpopular, it's potentially offensive to the section of the community that considers themselves British. Compounding that, republicanism is a dirty word with violent connotations. Change is unlikely to come from this particular part of the world.
Yet with the Irish Republic right down the road we have context on what a Republic really means. One looks at the picture of President Higgins standing in line for an ATM [1] and makes a decision right away. It either fills you with pride or with scorn.
It looks like there's a nascent movement towards Republicanism over in the UK but it'll be a long time coming.
The thing is Republicanism won't actually solve the problem you mention, of the core group of powerful MPs being overwhelmingly representative of the elite. If anything it will swing things further under their control.
The monarchy aren't that rich or powerful at all by modern standards. The true wealth is in random parts of the aristocracy that owns massive parts of west London, but again merely turning into a republic is not going to result in that being redistributed any more palatably than it is today.
It is a dated institution, and it is a bit odd to have people born into such a thing, but it really isn't that actively harmful, and certainly less harmful than a headlong rush into a worse alternative when it appears to be slowly diminishing into irrelevance without the need of any external stimulus.
In the list of "things actively harmful to the UK", bad behaviour and lobbying by multinational companies and the financial services industry is fairly near the top, while all the Royals except Charles are smart enough to stay away from political issues most of the time.
An actual dispute about Royal Assent on a piece of popular legislation would end in favour of Parliament fairly quickly.
You know about the corporate lobbying. I don't think any of us have the slightest idea what influence the Royals have over the wonks, men in grey suits and senior members of the Government.
"I always wondered what the guy banging on the door of the houses of Parliament with the huge ceremonial stick was all about when I was a kid."
This was the bit I also remember from a documentary I watched recently, they only answer on the third knock, I think. And when they move to the room where the Queen is to give her speech they talk among themselves deliberately loud to signal once again that they don't care.
Can you delve into a little more detail with the ATM picture? I am particularly confused about why it would evoke feeling of scorn but to be honest I am a little fuzzy on the pride aspect too. I imagine its because I am a yank, but the first thing that I thought of when I saw that photo is "why am I looking at the protectee standing still on the street and the only security detail I see has his back to (what seems to be the) main street so he can look down a side road?"
The picture shows the President queuing behind a member of the public to use the ATM.
As far as I know he's not required to do this, of course. He could have someone go for him etc.
In the UK it's very unlikely the Head of State would queue for an ATM and people who prefer the pageantry, pomp and ceremony of Royalty might feel this kind of behaviour demeans the office and is not worthy of a HoS. On the other hand, people holding more republican values might feel proud of their choice in electing a person who lives as they do.
I hadn't noticed the security thing. Ireland is neutral, guns are stringently controlled and no existing paramilitary group has a motive to assassinate the President. The security is probably there to mitigate the slightly increased risk of a 'lone nut' attack and not much else.
Thanks for the response. I was afraid I was wading into a mine field of politics that I did not understand. After reading your response I think that this is not a uniquely Irish predicament; I think this is an example of a universally "polarizing" question in any modern democracy. GWB was especially good at playing up the populist "a guy you would want to have a beer with" angle. Personally it has always been a non-issue to me. PotUS is not just like me or my friends and family and respectfully I will submit that your president does not live just like you do. I have never had a security detail escort me to the ATM and I cant imagine anyone would take my picture if they saw me standing in front of the ATM.
Ironic, as Spithead produced sweeping changes which paved the way for a decent standard of living and treatment for people at all levels in the Navy. It was, by any reasonable measure, a good thing.
I see the monarchy as a technical debt from experimenting with government models. We ended up something similar to a presidency but also left withe a symbolic head of state.
Because cost of removing the technical debt is bigger than the cost of living with it, we just ignore it.
The article reads to me like a crock of shait & a whole lot of naval gazing. Why is this even on HN? Or perhaps that's my somewhat biased non-british view of more useless crap left over from ages gone by, that nobody but the Brits really give a shit about.
Well, besides the fact that Elizabeth II is queen of a number of independent and sovereign countries around the world, I don't think anyone would expect a non-Brit (or non-Canadian, non-Australian, etc) person to care about the way we choose to govern ourselves. Also it doesn't really matter to us what you think about it either.
The monarchy and the wider UK constitution is like the ultimate legacy system. Extremely hard to change because it has all grown organically and has tentacles and interdependencies everywhere. And there's no authoritative documentation (ie written constitution), just a whole lot of observations about how it has always worked in the past [1].
Its worth reading about the duties of the "Queen's Remembrancer" [2], who is a real person right now. All the bizarre stuff about knives and nails and horseshoes and tablecloths has been going on, year after year, for over 800 years. Like some kind of autonomous system that nobody knows how to shut down any more.
So I find the British constitution quite fascinating, in the same way that some really old software from the early sixties but still in use somehow, would be fascinating. Unless you power the whole thing down (revolution) all you can really do is change it slowly. I sometimes wonder if thats the point of it.
That is the point of it; we're pretty much the only European country not to have had a violent change of government (revolution or invasion) since 1700. The establishment has been very good at mixing pragmatism with the usual imposition and violence, allowing enough reform to quell dissent and retreating from untenable positions. It's also very much been run for the benefit of a liberal trade-based upper middle class rather than a very narrow power base that would be prone to collapse.
I agree. I was thinking that it could have evolved to reduce the risk of destructive change and revolution, or to entrench the privileges of the powerful. I didn't fully appreciate the point that, to the rich and powerful, there is no distinction between those aims.
But go back just 50 years and there were shenanigans aplenty - and the years before weren't the peaceful settled picture we often have in mind.
France was far more stable than England for several centuries before 1789.
(You're right of course. But 1700 is a convenient cut off date, and belies the fact that pragmatism in the mix was a direct result of just how horrible was the interregnum.)
1700 is more than a convenient cutoff date - it's around that time when England ceased to exist as an independent state, and Great Britain as we know it started to take shape.
Nitpick: I reckon most of the time people on HN say "England" they actually mean "Great Britain" or "United Kingdom"
From a political and governance perspective, Great Britain started to take shape in 1660 and took an even greater leap forward in 1689.
So 1700 - and even 1707 - is pretty arbitrary.
England had a bloody and violent 17th C., which it exported to Scotland and especially to Ireland. The political and governance result of that violence was to strengthen parliament and weaken the monarchy, laying the ground for the pretty stable time that came later.
England - and later GB and the UK - didn't escape the violence that shook much of Europe in the 18th C, it went first, did it earlier.
It's disingenuous for someone to claim an extra century of calm and peace whilst ignoring the chaos and violence of the century before.
Don't muddle the monarchy and the "constitution". Few people want to change either because there's nothing relevant to change. Our laws are ultimately based on the Magna Carta and take into account the whole of law since. Do you think it would be better to replace that with a bunch of bullet points?
I wasn't advocating changing anything. I should probably have made it clear that I was referring to the role of the monarchy in the constitution. "The Crown" might have been a better phrase.
I'm totally ok with tradition and pomp... up to a point.
The mention of the civil war is the cue to where all this comes from. As usual after a civil war, what emerged was not a democracy but a military dictatorship. The UK was a Protestant theocracy for a while. This was sufficiently awful that there was no substantial opposition to the return of the monarchy after the death of Cromwell; however 20 years later a combination of desire for parliamentary power and anti-Catholicism resulted in deposing the monarch and replacing him with a different monarch imported from Holland, who would be under the control of parliamentarians.
Unpicking the constitutional settlement opens several extremely controversial cans of worms. For example, the role of religion in the UK; authority over the armed forces; land ownership reform; the House of Lords; the electoral system in general; devolution; and the strangeness of the Crown dependencies (channel islands, Isle of Man, etc).
There are people who are violently loyal to the monarchy, as well as a wide spread of society who are affectionate towards the Royal Family.
There are people who are violently loyal to the monarchy
The stress on "are" makes it sound like this would be considered a difficult to believe position. For my own part as a happy Royalist, if some bizarre and unfortunate circumstance came down to us being forced into another Royals vs parliament civil war, I'd be on the Royal side in a heartbeat.
As an American with little knowledge of British politics this is a bit surprising. Do you mind going into the reasons that lead you to be on the Royal side?
You know how there are Americans who hate the current government and would like to see it all thrown out, but will stand and defend their nation without hesitation? The Royal Family is a concrete and personal representation of the nation, it's like if Uncle Sam or Lady Liberty were real people who existed outside of national and local politics representing the cultural heritage of the nation as a whole. We would treat them like royalty (ha) and protect them at all costs.
xanderstrike did a really good job of explaining a part of it. The monarch is our true head of state and the Royal Family our 'family of state', if you will. For all their problems, the Royal Family provides a real sense of continuity for Britishness and, to a lesser extent, an important sense of separateness from politics (usually) and what I consider critical 'reserve powers' to protect us from potential extraordinary political events (it's hard to speculate, but I doubt George V would have allowed a Hitler-esque figure to dismantle the political apparatus of the UK in the way Hitler did in Germany under von Hindenburg).
I must confess I recognize I am slightly biased as our current monarch is such a good one. I might not have been so keen on the institution in Richard III's time ;-) Politicians come and go and prime minsters are lucky to stay around for 10 years, but Queen Elizabeth II has been the figurehead of my country for 62 years and has essentially devoted her life in service of it. I have a lot of respect for her as an individual.
There are a variety of lesser, miscellaneous reasons too. I see no specific need to change, the Royal Family provides a net profit to the country financially, having an army allied to the country rather than its current political system is best, they don't have a significant impact on democratic procedure in ideal times, they provide a long-term narrative and stability, and more besides.
> The Queen reads a speech that is written by someone else, namely the government. They make her repeat excruciating political slogans. Her representative in the Palace of Westminster - we aficionados call him Black Rod - has the doors of the House of Commons slammed in his face to remind the monarch who is boss.
This part is very eloquently captured in the political thriller trilogy by BBC - "House of Cards" (UK version 1990) [0]. The part I am referring to is the second part of the trilogy and is titled "To Play the King" aired in 1993 [1].
116 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 209 ms ] threadPomp and ceremony, with little substance, seems to be an essence of many a puppet state.
In reality the Queen is a symbol of the glorious colonial times.
The idea that there is a continuous history even of the English over this time is utterly risible - let alone the British, 'Britain' as a thing being - as the GGGGP says - the product of the imperial era more than anything else (act of union 1707, last Jacobite rising 1745; treaty of Utrecht, which cemented British supremacy, 1714; rapid colonial expansion thereafter).
The more pressing problem with the monarchy is the 'royal prerogative', which has the effect of turning 'Call Me Dave' Cameron into a de facto president.
As a believer in the exclusive democratic legitimacy of the legislature, I do not believe in monarchs - born or elected.
Are you suggesting that you would prefer Cameron as a de jure President?
Kind of a mixture of the ceremonial humbling of the Queen mentioned in the original article and the Troubles-era rule that all Sinn Fein statements must be read by an actor.
You could even argue that the reserve powers of the British monarch are indeed great, although, if they ever tried to exercise them in there own right there would probably be a constitutional crisis, and without broad public support they would not prevail.
And by extension... with broad public support they would prevail and execute the will of the people in a time of crisis and with the full support of the military. Which, perversely, effectively places the reserve powers of the Monarch and the might of the military in the hands of the people at exactly the time the people would need them.
You mean King Joffrey from Game of Thrones? Who reigned briefly, and during that time could essentially only effectively rule what occurred in his immediate presence and then only mostly by surprise, since otherwise effective rule in his name was mostly by his mother, uncle, or (simultaneously paternal and maternal) grandfather according to their own desires?
Yeah, there are real monarchs with at least that much power a number of places.
Senior Civil Servants and Minister's aides have far more power comparative to the press coverage they receive.
Unfortunately I choose to migrate from one constitutional monarchy to another, which seems to have just as much fun with all the ceremonies, days off and drunken patriotism as back home. Peer Netherlands
I encourage you to look here: https://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/CourtCircular/To... where you can see exactly what they all get up to.
Just like the Athenians found with democracy - where they chose at random their executive each year. The people who run for powerful offices are usually the exact sort who you don't want in charge. Luck is a very good equaliser.
So for constitutional monarchies, the question would be: if they were ever to turn into a republic, who would be their head of state? and how would that be any better than simply staying with the monarch?
[edit: grammar]
No "common" person born in Britain, Canada, Australia etc. today can ever become the head of state of those countries, no matter how smart, qualified, or hard-working they are. That seem benign to you?
Sure, its fundamentally also a symbol of inequality and it is the ultimate anachronism today, but the role it plays in daily life is so low that I don't think it even matters. Do I feel strange being reigned over by an elderly German lady from across the ocean? Perhaps. But the alternative is radical and unpredictable change, and that I am not so excited about. I like the idea that ultimate power in the country is invested in someone who is fundamentally disinterested in politics. The Crown has no political side, only what is best for the country. I understand why people are so uncomfortable with the notion of the monarchy, but I believe it is in the best interest of our country to maintain it.
I would guess that your compatriots from Quebec or the First Nations might feel differently.
EDIT: yes she can choose to abdicate, but not exactly as easily and free from consequence as anyone else could quit their job.
I'm pretty sure she can abdicate if she feels like it.
Fun to think about!
Let's say we decide to abolish the monarchy purely on humanitarian grounds (i.e. it's tantamount to slavery, however gilded the shackles might be, so let's rescue them). Do they get a say? What if they decline to be saved? What does that say about their motivations - maybe they like the rewards of their servitude a little too much? What if secretly they crave power? Does the very act of refusing to be freed imply that they must be freed? What about the converse - if they accept release, then perhaps we'd consider them to be truly moral and therefore ideally suited to the role; mightn't we then decide not to abolish the job after all?
My personal view is that the monarchy is a net benefit to the country, both economically and politically. I believe that republicanism* in Britain is mostly the product of reflexive prejudice and not deep, open minded consideration. I'd be interested to hear what the proposed benefits of abolishing the monarchy are, beyond a trivial cash saving which one might argue is invalid in the first place.
*(meaning abolition of the monarchy, not the Irish variety)
It's quite simple really: in a republic a president is the head of state (as opposed to a monarch), and is elected (as opposed to a monarch) to serve for a defined period of time (as opposed to a monarch). A president is chosen based on merit, not on birth right. It's really about fairness and accountability.
The British monarch acts as a very gentle but constant steadying hand on the tiller of government. The queen meets in private with the prime minister weekly and holds regular meetings with a group of senior politicians (the Privy Council) as well as performing the functions described in the OP. These things help to inculcate British political life with a sense of permanence and continuity, and of duty and service to the country - the latter two being especially well exemplified by the monarchy. The day to day scrapping at PMQs doesn't reflect this on the surface, but read any retired PM's memoirs for some color on how important that aspect of her role really is. This would utterly disappear with an elected head of state, leaving British politics to collapse (some would add 'further') into the kind of rampant short-termism which afflicts most Western republics.
True, she's not elected. True, perhaps, that her position isn't 'fair' in some arbitrarily egalitarian sense, but that cuts both ways: she can't escape her position. The steady state which Britain has reached over the last thousand years of experimentation is proving remarkably resilient, given that supposed lack of fairness and accountability at the very top.
Perhaps it's just that theoretical concerns of absolute fairness and accountability don't really matter when you have a system which works well and allows its people full participatory rights in its government.
That's what Charles I thought......
I'm also quite sure that most of the Royal Family do more work than most people do.
A visit from the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge probably eclipses either.
The goodwill benefit to the UK is immense. Taking the politics out of it is also very useful, see the recent state visit to Ireland, any elected British head of state would not have been able to produce such a meaningful and symbolic event.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Grant_Act_2011
They also pay tax: "In 1992, The Queen volunteered to pay income tax and capital gains tax, and since 1993 her personal income has been taxable as for any other taxpayer. The Queen has always been subject to Value Added Tax and pays local rates on a voluntary basis." I also assume that she does minimal tax avoidance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate
http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHousehold/Royalfinances/Taxa...
We'd also have to protect President Dave as much as the Queen now; I saw an article a few years back stating that President Hollande directly costs the French as much than the Queen does in security, expenses and so on.
The pomp and ceremony displayed in the Queen's Speech are just traditional flourishes to what would always be an expensive meeting in an expensive government year.
Its not something I would want to replicate in form here (and it wouldn't work anyway -- to the extent it works in the UK it does because of historical context, not because of the form alone), and I'm not saying that Britons shouldn't adopt a Republic, but I think that its worth considering what benefits the monarchy provides (even if they are outweighed by the costs) and whether any replacement system can retain or replicate them by alternate means while mitigating the costs (and maybe it can't, and the best net is to sacrifice the benefits to eliminate the costs.)
The other advantage is in breaking up gridlock. I kind of wanted a Queen during the government shutdown last year, so she could dissolve Congress and allow us to vote the lot of them out. I bet you they'd be a lot less likely to do things like that if they knew there could be a sudden election, right when public support is at its lowest.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_...
I think there is a cultural disconnect on both sides here. As a yank I think it is absolutely preposterous that Australian, British, Canadian, Dominican, etc citizens and members of the military must swear or affirm an oath of allegiance to some lady, "her heirs and successors according to law" simply because of who her daddy was. But that is because I am not intimately acquainted with all of the symbolism and tradition.
Similarly, I think that subjects of the commonwealth miss out on an understanding of the symbolism and tradition behind the "support the president" quote.[^1] The support in this case is not about the individual but about the office of PotUS. The support of the office is an acceptance and affirmation of the outcome of a free an fair election and in no small part a complete and total rejection of the chains of haplotype worship. In the US oath of allegiance citizens swear or affirm allegiance to the Constitution and instead of swearing or affirming allegiance, individuals must renounce and abjure any allegiance to princes, sovereigns, etc.
[^1]: I say "I think I understand the sentiment" but I have never heard of it phrased that way (and Google only gives three results yours being one of them.
I do, however, see the wisdom in a non-political head of state. It can help break gridlock and disassociate patriotism from politics. (w.r.t the "I support our president" thing, I was specifically thinking of this crap: [1].)
I just don't think anyone's found the right option for the head of state. Inheritance is bad, a sinecure for elderly politician is bad, a popular election would obviate the non-political part of it. I almost want it to be a career civil servant, like a career diplomat. The Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs is, I believe, the highest non-appointed person in State. Something like that.
[1]: http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Music/09/03/cnna.spears/
I've heard a few years ago that Hollande, to break with his predecessor Sarkozy, wanted to travel by train rather than by plane whenever possible, in order to look less costly for the French citizen. However it wasn't the case : a train is way more complex to secure than a plane.
Basically in order to secure a train, you need to put an agent at every junction/bridge/tunnel to look for saboteur or terrorist, whereas a plane can take off (resp. land) from (resp. on) a military airport (national airspace is being monitored anyway).
That said, I think it's ok to honor a deal of, "Walk away, and we let your offspring pretend they are important, and we won't expropriate your wealth." And as much of a shmuck Prince Harry seems to be, I respect that he volunteered to serve in Afghanistan, where he knew he would be a target. That's more brave than any president that the US has seen in the past 20 years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw
I would like to see the Monarchy take a more active role in the government of the country, but even without that they remain a theoretical counter to the foolishness of our current leadership.
Prince George's future is all laid out, he has zero incentive and zero opportunity to make something worthwhile by himself. He will never be "just another one of the team", at least, not for long.
I wouldn't wish Prince George's life for my sons.
Being a part of military actually should be seen as a limitation rather than William going his own way. Since the soldiers pledge their loyalty to the crown it is deemed appropriate that a potential future monarch should serve in the military. They get to choose which bit, and perhaps when, but they probably never had a choice about joining up. Then the Royals only tend to spend a couple of years. Harry is the keenest as he joined infantry. But his fame brought him back from action early because he was a prized target.
Also Wikipedia now says Harry's now in project management: "On 17 January 2014, the Ministry of Defence announced that Harry had completed his attachment to 3 Regiment Army Air Corps and will take up a staff officer role at the position of SO3 (Defence Engagement) in HQ London District. His responsibilities will include helping to co-ordinate significant projects and commemorative events involving the Army in London."
I would expect this is not what he would have chosen had he been born Harry Smith.
The quote that stands out from the episode, "It has occurred to me recently that I have never chosen anything. I was born into a role that was prepared for me. I did everything I was asked to do because it never occurred to me to choose otherwise. And now, at the end of my life, I wonder what might have been. "
I always wondered what the guy banging on the door of the houses of Parliament with the huge ceremonial stick was all about when I was a kid.
Nevertheless, so long as power is concentrated in an utterly unaccountable and inaccessible elite we'll never know if it is indicative of the true state of affairs, an elaborate coverup or somewhere in-between the two.
Where I come from to question the British Monarchy is not only unpopular, it's potentially offensive to the section of the community that considers themselves British. Compounding that, republicanism is a dirty word with violent connotations. Change is unlikely to come from this particular part of the world.
Yet with the Irish Republic right down the road we have context on what a Republic really means. One looks at the picture of President Higgins standing in line for an ATM [1] and makes a decision right away. It either fills you with pride or with scorn.
It looks like there's a nascent movement towards Republicanism over in the UK but it'll be a long time coming.
1: https://twitter.com/AwningsIreland/status/448436785220452352...
The monarchy aren't that rich or powerful at all by modern standards. The true wealth is in random parts of the aristocracy that owns massive parts of west London, but again merely turning into a republic is not going to result in that being redistributed any more palatably than it is today.
It is a dated institution, and it is a bit odd to have people born into such a thing, but it really isn't that actively harmful, and certainly less harmful than a headlong rush into a worse alternative when it appears to be slowly diminishing into irrelevance without the need of any external stimulus.
"it really isn't that actively harmful"
How can you be sure?
An actual dispute about Royal Assent on a piece of popular legislation would end in favour of Parliament fairly quickly.
You know about the corporate lobbying. I don't think any of us have the slightest idea what influence the Royals have over the wonks, men in grey suits and senior members of the Government.
This was the bit I also remember from a documentary I watched recently, they only answer on the third knock, I think. And when they move to the room where the Queen is to give her speech they talk among themselves deliberately loud to signal once again that they don't care.
The picture shows the President queuing behind a member of the public to use the ATM.
As far as I know he's not required to do this, of course. He could have someone go for him etc.
In the UK it's very unlikely the Head of State would queue for an ATM and people who prefer the pageantry, pomp and ceremony of Royalty might feel this kind of behaviour demeans the office and is not worthy of a HoS. On the other hand, people holding more republican values might feel proud of their choice in electing a person who lives as they do.
I hadn't noticed the security thing. Ireland is neutral, guns are stringently controlled and no existing paramilitary group has a motive to assassinate the President. The security is probably there to mitigate the slightly increased risk of a 'lone nut' attack and not much else.
Quite Right.
Because cost of removing the technical debt is bigger than the cost of living with it, we just ignore it.
http://relentlesslife.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/the-true-cost...
In video form: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhyYgnhhKFw
Its worth reading about the duties of the "Queen's Remembrancer" [2], who is a real person right now. All the bizarre stuff about knives and nails and horseshoes and tablecloths has been going on, year after year, for over 800 years. Like some kind of autonomous system that nobody knows how to shut down any more.
So I find the British constitution quite fascinating, in the same way that some really old software from the early sixties but still in use somehow, would be fascinating. Unless you power the whole thing down (revolution) all you can really do is change it slowly. I sometimes wonder if thats the point of it.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_King...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen's_Remembrancer
France was far more stable than England for several centuries before 1789.
(You're right of course. But 1700 is a convenient cut off date, and belies the fact that pragmatism in the mix was a direct result of just how horrible was the interregnum.)
Nitpick: I reckon most of the time people on HN say "England" they actually mean "Great Britain" or "United Kingdom"
England is what I meant.
From a political and governance perspective, Great Britain started to take shape in 1660 and took an even greater leap forward in 1689.
So 1700 - and even 1707 - is pretty arbitrary.
England had a bloody and violent 17th C., which it exported to Scotland and especially to Ireland. The political and governance result of that violence was to strengthen parliament and weaken the monarchy, laying the ground for the pretty stable time that came later.
England - and later GB and the UK - didn't escape the violence that shook much of Europe in the 18th C, it went first, did it earlier.
It's disingenuous for someone to claim an extra century of calm and peace whilst ignoring the chaos and violence of the century before.
Tradition grounds us. Pomp is enjoyable.
I'm totally ok with tradition and pomp... up to a point.
Unpicking the constitutional settlement opens several extremely controversial cans of worms. For example, the role of religion in the UK; authority over the armed forces; land ownership reform; the House of Lords; the electoral system in general; devolution; and the strangeness of the Crown dependencies (channel islands, Isle of Man, etc).
There are people who are violently loyal to the monarchy, as well as a wide spread of society who are affectionate towards the Royal Family.
The stress on "are" makes it sound like this would be considered a difficult to believe position. For my own part as a happy Royalist, if some bizarre and unfortunate circumstance came down to us being forced into another Royals vs parliament civil war, I'd be on the Royal side in a heartbeat.
I must confess I recognize I am slightly biased as our current monarch is such a good one. I might not have been so keen on the institution in Richard III's time ;-) Politicians come and go and prime minsters are lucky to stay around for 10 years, but Queen Elizabeth II has been the figurehead of my country for 62 years and has essentially devoted her life in service of it. I have a lot of respect for her as an individual.
There are a variety of lesser, miscellaneous reasons too. I see no specific need to change, the Royal Family provides a net profit to the country financially, having an army allied to the country rather than its current political system is best, they don't have a significant impact on democratic procedure in ideal times, they provide a long-term narrative and stability, and more besides.
This part is very eloquently captured in the political thriller trilogy by BBC - "House of Cards" (UK version 1990) [0]. The part I am referring to is the second part of the trilogy and is titled "To Play the King" aired in 1993 [1].
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Cards_(UK_TV_series) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Play_the_King